Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 1327
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
M/s Lauls Limited – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co. & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 13404 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.23246 of 2023), Civil Appeal No. 13403 Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.22793 of 2023)
Decided on : 28-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/S. Shakil Ahmad Syed, AOR, Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv., Mr. Syed Ahmed Saud, Adv., Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv., Mr. Daanish Ahmed Syed, Adv.,
Mr. Sarthak Arora, Adv., Mr. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Garg, Adv., Mr. Aqib Baig, Adv., Mr. Mohd. Shahib, Adv., M/S. M/s Ravi Chandra Prakash & Co., AOR, Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv., Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR, Ms. Saumya Tandon, Adv., M/S. M/s Ravi Chandra Prakash & Co., AOR
The court restored the compensation for the deceased student, emphasizing the evaluation of future potential earnings and the insurer's accountability in proving negligence for license validity under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 168 - Compensation for road accident - The original award of Rs.33,75,000/- for a deceased student involved in an accident was reduced to Rs.16,33,000/- by High Court; however, no sustainable reasons were provided for this reduction. The court restored the original compensation, highlighting the importance of future prospects in assessing damages. Additionally, the insurer's liability was reinstated as it failed to prove negligence on the part of the vehicle owner regarding the validity of the driver’s license. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 14)
(B) Insurance Liability - The court reiterated that mere possession of a fake license does not absolve the insurer's obligation unless it proves the insured’s negligence in verifying the license’s genuineness. (Paras 10, 12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and compensation award (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's satisfaction with compensation (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. assessment of compensation calculation (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. liability of insurer and validity of driver's license (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. restoration of compensation and liability decision (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The captioned appeals by special leave petition are directed against the common judgment and order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MAC.APP Nos.447/2015 and 925/2014 arising from the award dated 13.08.2014 in Suit No.77/2011.
3. The former appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident in question and the later appeal has been filed by the petitioner. For convenience, hereinafter in this order, we refer to the parties in accordance with their rank and status in the suit before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal unless otherwise mentioned specifically. On 18.06.2009, Amarpreet Singh, the son of the petitioner met with an accident involving the vehicle belonging to respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle. He succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident and therefore, claimant filed the aforesaid suit. After going through the evidence, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.33,75,000/-as compensation. At the same time, the tribunal found that the license of respondent No.1 in the suit viz., driver of the offending vehicle, was a fake one. The Insurance Company saddled with the liability to satisfy the compensation awarded, of course, with the right to the insurer to recover it later. In other words, respondent No.3-insurance company was exonerated from the liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, but made to pay and recover. Against the judgment both the insured and the insurance company preferred appeals, respectively as MAC.APP Nos.925/2014 and 447/2015 respectively. MAC.APP No.447/2015, was filed, essentially, by the owner challenging the exoneration of the insurance company from indemnifying him. The High Court passed the impugned passed the impugned judgment in the appeals on 14.07.2023 whereunder MAC appeal No.925/2014 was partly allowed and MAC appeal No.447/2015 was dismissed. MAC appeal 925/2014 was partly allowed and the compensation was reduced from Rs.33,75,000/-to Rs.16,33,000/-and the award of interest was maintained. It was further ordered thus: -
“52. In MAC Appeal 925/2014, this Court vide order dated 14.10.2024, noted the submission of the learned Counsel for the Insurer that the awarded amount has been attached by the learned Claims Tribunal and perhaps released to the Claimants. This Court observed that if the said amount is not released, 50% is to be released to the Claimant and balance 50% is to be kept in an FDR.
If the learned Claims Tribunal kept 50% of the awarded amount in an FDR, the same shall be released to the Insurer. If it is not available, the Insurer will be at liberty to recover the same from the Claimants.”
4. We firstly, consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner/appellant in the later appeal that the petitioner would be satisfied if the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which was interfered with as relates the quantum of compensation, is restored. In such circumstances, we will proceed to consider the former appeal to find out whether the impugned judgment to the extent it reduced the quantum of compensation invites interference or not.
5. Necessarily, the question whether exoneration of the insurance company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle is also a question, then to be considered. Certainly, that shall not deter us from considering the first question.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company and respondent No.2-the owner of the vehicle.
7. It is not in dispute that the son of the claimant succumbed to the injuries
